PDA

View Full Version : NTRP ranking levels


v205
04-23-2009, 06:14 AM
Just out of curiousity, would a 3.5 singles winner have a chance against the average 4.0 singles player?

How about similair to the above comparison or just in general:

A 4.0 against a 4.5? How about a 4.5 against a 5.0?

And what really differentiates a 5.0 and 5.5?

theZig
04-23-2009, 06:26 AM
a difference in 0.5 NTRP scores would look something like 6-3 6-2 regularly. as in, when the 3.5 does WELL he might take it to a third set, but rarely win the match.

larry10s
04-23-2009, 06:30 AM
points could be competitve but the higher ranked player will win .

larry10s
04-23-2009, 06:32 AM
the 0.5 point differential means the higher ranked player is a little more consistent able to control the points better etc

mikeler
04-23-2009, 06:33 AM
I'm a 5.0 and used to have a 5.5 player in my rotation. The best I ever did against him was a 7-6, 6-4 loss. I was playing out of mind that evening and he did not play well. Normally I would only get 4 to 6 games off him.

LeeD
04-23-2009, 08:09 AM
I'd say, depends on the game of the players involved.
Big strong first strike game, the lower player, when playing really well, has a good chance to win against higher level players who aren't on top of their game.
This happens more often in important tournaments than practice matches. Those tournaments, big pressure, and sometimes very good players succumb to the pressure and distractions of the whole circus act. Lesser players with the big hitting game have less pressure, as they don't plan to win anyways, and can go a few more rounds than their better rivals.
Just citing my case when I played big tournaments....lower expectations can often lead a worse player to hit out and play worry free....

GeoffB
04-23-2009, 08:33 AM
This is a tricky question, because the differences within a rating can exceed the difference between ratings.

Two people who are borderline 4.0 - with one barely making it and the other just under, should have a highly competitive match. Whereas a 4.0 who is barely under 4.5 against a 3.5 who is almost a 3.0 would probably be a poor and boring match. It would probably go 6-0, 6-0, and even if the 3.5 did take a few games, it would have all the suspense of a double bagel match.

Really, big differences can occur within a rating - take a 4.0 who is just below 4.5 against a 4.0 who is barely above 3.5. That match *could* easily go 6-1, 6-1 (with points that reflect the score) if the higher ranked player is on his game. The difference here is that I wouldn't say this will *always* happen - sometimes the lower ranked player can work his way into the match (which would never happen for a near-4.5 vs a near-3.0, which would be a beatdown every single time).

That said, I think a typical score for a mid-point 4.0 against a midpoint 3.5 would probably be 6-3, 6-2 or so. At least one break a set, with the higher rated player solidly in control the entire time. The lower rated player might make it more competitive now and then, but would win less than 10% of the time.

burosky
04-23-2009, 10:03 AM
Then you also have players who mostly play doubles and just dabbles in singles. That adds another twist to this discussion.

raiden031
04-23-2009, 11:10 AM
I once read somewhere that the rating differential is around .06 per service break. That would equate to 0.36 in a double-bagel.

Also take a look at this quote from NTRP on the subject:


Are all players in a given NTRP level equal in ability?

No …The NTRP system identifies general levels of ability, but an individual will
be rated within those levels at 50 different hundredths of a point. For example, a 3.5 player can fall anywhere between a 3.01 and a 3.50. That is the reason many people feel they are playing sandbaggers – they are closer to the bottom of that range while their opponents are closer to the top of the range. A typical match result for a player, for example, with a 3.01 rating versus a 3.49 player, both of whom are 3.5s, would be 6-0, 6-0 in favor of the higher rated player.

OrangePower
04-23-2009, 01:20 PM
This is a tricky question, because the differences within a rating can exceed the difference between ratings.

Right on.

Imagine you have a 3.95 versus a 3.55. Both would have 4.0 NTRP (NTRP rounds dynamic rating up to the nearest 0.5). But the 3.95 would be expected to win something like 6-1, 6-1.

Now imagine a 4.05 versus the 3.95 above. The 4.05 would have 4.5 NTRP. But the match would be expected to be very competitive (6-4, 6-4 or maybe even split sets).

Just out of curiousity, would a 3.5 singles winner have a chance against the average 4.0 singles player?

By 3.5 singles winner, let's assume someone who has had a lot of success in 3.5 singles. So the dynamic rating would probably be at the upper end of the range, say 3.45.

The average 4.0 singles player is probably 3.7 or thereabouts.

Expected outcome I'd guess would be around 6-2, 6-4. But on any given day, a .25 difference can definitely be overcome depending on styles and on how the players are playing. So I would give the 3.5 in this case a 20% chance of winning.

framer
04-23-2009, 04:00 PM
IMHO, a 0.5 difference is worth at least 2+ breaks per set. Whether true 4.0 vs 3.5 or 3.75 vs 3.25 or 3.5 vs 3.0, the score should be 6-2 or 6-1 or 6-0. In my league, the guy that plays #2 singles for a decent 4.0 team will bagel or breadstick the #2 singles guy on a decent 3.5 team. Ironically, the spread could be closer or worse at #1 - due to the fact there are so many ringers that play #1 singles. Often, even at the same level, the #1 singles player can easily beat the #2 by 2 breaks per set.

WBF
04-23-2009, 05:47 PM
.5 is essentially the different between winning and loosing (actually .5, like 3.5 to 4.0, not a high level 3.5 player to low 4.0 player). The lower rated player might win once out of a great, great many matches (typically due to external factors such as sickness of the other player, injury of the other player, etc).

duketennisgal
04-24-2009, 04:08 AM
You also have to take in the type of player. I know of a player that is at the top of her level but still can have close matches with a person in the level below her. The reason being is that she plays a very high risk game. She is not going to win a consistency battle with anybody b/c she doesn't play that way. Her purpose going into a match is never to out rally the opponent, her purpose is to put the ball away every chance she gets. Therefore she can be prone to losing more games than a person that just goes out there and gets every ball in play.

She's had several matches with people that are rated lower than her where the scores may be 4 and 2 or 4 and 5, or even three setters, but she has yet to lose a singles match in league or in tournament play since she started playing league (4.5) 3 years ago.

mikeler
04-24-2009, 04:24 AM
IMHO, a 0.5 difference is worth at least 2+ breaks per set.


I agree with this assessment which also jives with what theZig is saying.

StringingIrvine
04-24-2009, 08:57 PM
I want to say rating also depends on the area you live as well.

davidahenry
04-25-2009, 09:46 AM
I play in a 4.0 singles league at my club, and I am a middle of the pack guy. (This session, I am 4-2 thus far, so maybe I am slowly moving toward the front of the pack. :-))

Last week, the champion from last session's 3.5 league subbed in our 4.0 league and played me. We got in three sets in 1.5 hours, and I took them all fairly easily. 6-3, 6-1, 6-1.

So for what it is worth, this shows one instance of the difference between a 3.5 and 4.0 player on one given night in Dayton, OH.

Seriously though, it is really tough to give a definitive answer to the OP's question.

Take care.

DH

Steady Eddy
04-25-2009, 10:03 AM
A 4.0 beats a 3.0. And a 5.0 beats a 4.0. But strangely enough, even though a 6.0 beats a 5.0, the 6.0 cannot beat a 3.0. It's circular, just like the rock, scissors, paper game. 6.0 players will tell you, that a 3.0 is so bad, that it throws them off, and they can't play against their junky game. They have to play someone better than that to win. A total beginner would win Wimbledon, because they're so bad that it would really mess up players of that level. But a beginner would never even be allowed into the draw of Wimbledon, so that will never happen.

DANMAN
04-25-2009, 10:30 AM
A 4.0 beats a 3.0. And a 5.0 beats a 4.0. But strangely enough, even though a 6.0 beats a 5.0, the 6.0 cannot beat a 3.0. It's circular, just like the rock, scissors, paper game. 6.0 players will tell you, that a 3.0 is so bad, that it throws them off, and they can't play against their junky game. They have to play someone better than that to win. A total beginner would win Wimbledon, because they're so bad that it would really mess up players of that level. But a beginner would never even be allowed into the draw of Wimbledon, so that will never happen.

Wow, wow, wow....the excuse of not being able to effectively handle junk should only be used by a junior playing a crafty vet. If you are rated higher than someone, you should win. I am assuming your above post was a joke though...

Steady Eddy
04-25-2009, 10:51 AM
Wow, wow, wow....the excuse of not being able to effectively handle junk should only be used by a junior playing a crafty vet. If you are rated higher than someone, you should win. I am assuming your above post was a joke though...Yeah, but when I started out in tennis, the guys teaching me said that I could win lots of points off of them 'cause I was so bad. They said that if I was a better player, I would not even get a single point. And that good players can't defeat bad ones. This confused me about tennis for a long time. I wondered, "Couldn't a hacker find his way into the U.S. Open draw, and destroy all the pros with his rotten game?"

I think it's true, though, that good players don't look very good when playing someone terrible. That's one reason they don't like to hit with crappy players. I don't think that the worse player wins, though. But brings up all sorts of conundrums.

raiden031
04-25-2009, 01:10 PM
Yeah, but when I started out in tennis, the guys teaching me said that I could win lots of points off of them 'cause I was so bad. They said that if I was a better player, I would not even get a single point. And that good players can't defeat bad ones. This confused me about tennis for a long time. I wondered, "Couldn't a hacker find his way into the U.S. Open draw, and destroy all the pros with his rotten game?"

I think it's true, though, that good players don't look very good when playing someone terrible. That's one reason they don't like to hit with crappy players. I don't think that the worse player wins, though. But brings up all sorts of conundrums.

So who taught you tennis? I don't think its hard to win matches against terrible players, but I have a hard time practicing with them. Because they hit the ball erratically, I have a hard time getting into a groove while working on my shots because the ball is unpredictable.